REPORT RESUMESED 011 774 JC 670 67SPRESIDENTS OF PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES, Ah ANALYSIS OF SELECTEDBACKGROUND FACTORS.BY- SCHULTZ, RAYMOND E. FOBERTS, DAYTON Y.FLORIDA ST. UNIV., TALLAHASSEE

PUB DATE NOV 64EDRS PRICE MF-$0.09 HC-$1.24 31P.

WSCRIPTORS- *JUNIOR COLLEGES, *COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION,*ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL) *ADMINISTRATOR CHARACTERISTICS,*ADMINISTRATOR BACKGROUND, GOVERNANCE, PRESIDENTS, CHIEFADMINISTRATORS, TALLAHASSEE

DATA GATHERED FROM QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES AND FROMBIOGRAPHICAL PUBLICATIONS ARE USED TO STUDY 333 JUNIORCOLLEGE PRESIDENTS AND OTHER PERSONNEL WITH MAJORADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES IN BOTH PUBLIC AND PRiVATEINSTITUTIONS. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IS COMPARED IN TERMS OFLEVEL OF DEGREE HELD ANO PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT. PREVIOUSEXPERIENCE AND RECRUITMENT PATTERNS ARE SUMWRIZED INRELATION TO STATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNANCE TYPOLOGY.FEWER THAN HALF OF THE ADMINISTRATORS (44.1 PERCENT) POSSESSA DOCTORAL DEGREE, AND TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE HOLD THE ED.D.DEGREE. A WIDE VARIATION IN THE PROPORTION OF DOCTORATEMOLDERS AMONG STATES IS NOTED. NEARLY THREE-FOURTHS (72.1PERCENT) OF THE ENTIRE GROUP SPECIALIZED IN PROFESSIONALEDUCATION FOR THEIR HIGHEST DEGREE. EIGHIY PERCENT OF THESEPRESIDENTS CAME TO THEIR ASSIGNMENTS DIRECTLY FROM SOME OTHERADMINISTRATIVE POST. A TREND TOWARD SELECTING MORE PRESIDENTSFROM THE SENIOR COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY RANKS IS VALIDATED,ALTHOUGH WIDE VARIATIONS AMONG THE STATES IS APPARENT. BOTHSIZE OF THE COLLEGE AND MODE OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE ARE FOUND TOINFLUENCE WHETHER PRESIDENTS ARE SELECTED FROM COLLEGE RANKSOR FROM POSITIONS IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS. MEANAGE OF THE GROUP IS 47 YEARS WITH A RANGE FROM 31 TO 74. THENET ANNUAL REPLACEMENT NEED IS ESTABLISHED AS 4.7 PERCENT OFTHE TOTAL NUMBER. (AL)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HM BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON UR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

PRESIDENTS OF MUT JUNIOR COLLEGES

An Ara Zysis ofSelected Bacckgrour4 ?actors

by

Raymond E. Sebults

Professor of Elgher MucationPlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

Daytoa 1% RobertsAssistant to the PresidentJunior College of Bleariest, CountyFt. Xouderdaley Florida.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIF.

LOS ANGELES

MAY 2 9 1967

CLEARINGHOUSE FORJUNIOR COLLEGE

INFORMATION

Reproduced byDepartel-st of !1 Tier Education

Florida 0:.ete University

November 196 4

1.,4wialliftiK' itialkidaliitiiiiMilligilli

The role played by the junior college in Anerican education has increased

steadily in importance ever 'Lhe jet two decades. Especially has th:i.e been

true since the increased birth rate that folloved World War II began to be

vefleeted in the celleee-age population. Accompanying this increase in college-age

population has been technologic:Ill change eaupled with favorable economic conditions.

These latter ractors have emated both more of a need and a Grecter desire for

education beyond b:Ich

While all types of` teoyear colleges hale felt the impact of tbese changing

conditions, public junq:-.' colledes have beee most drametically affected. States

which previoesly had fe er ee such inet'-ieltiens aave eslablis!.efl or are in the

process of establishiee Leee;e-wi' e.g., Florlda, Neeeachusetts, North

Carolina, Ohio, and Oregee, SttLte -eeea:e'an appreciable number of a3 is junior

eLleges already eeieted are experiencing pronounced enrollment growths and

curriculum expansions. Some of these states such as California, Illinois,

Michigan, New York, and Washir3ten have also established numerous new institltiens

Accompanying this growth has been incTeasinrly favorable representation

32 the jurOor eolle3c tn newspaxers pepelar and professional ma6azines,

However, relatively fel' of the articles appearing in professional jeuenels

arE analytical in nature. 7,irce e,elcific information is needed as a Lazio ?ar

igprovement, more attention to this approaeh seem needed. It requires "cutting

the microscope," so to speak, m suecifie aspects of the institution and its

operation. The researeh ee:aoetd in article is of such a nature.

DoscLIplAilL -T Procedure

This article is based en data colleceed fare nation-wide predictive ste:.ly

of junior college administrative needs.' That study included presidents and other

..arsonnel with major csiministrative responsibilities in both public and private

institutions. Reported here are analyses made of the educational backgrounds,

previoas experience, and age of those who in the spring of 1963 held positions

as chief administrators of 2liblis junior colleges of the aggregate United States

In addition, the rate and CAUSEIS of turnover for thfs position were deter lined.

To make possible comparisons by state, tabulations re:-e made using those states

for which data could be obtained oe P.) or more presidents. Sixteen states -*ere

incleded on that basis, and they reprel-f,.-:nted 274 (82.3%) of t1 entire group

reported upon.

Information liat3 solicied from -cam chief' administrators of all public

junior colleges listed in .:11e 19(3 Jtrior College Directory.3 Sdbsequensly

the following 1/ere eliminate) for the reasons noted:

1. Astlare_presidents. Their status is temporary by definition, and hence

it was felt that they might not be representative of junior college presidents,

Five were omitted for this reason.

2. Chief administrators of WissapAlp,Iya:aaragyntyaEhers colleges.

T,is group, numberire 22, administers an antiquated and passing institution on

tle American educational sseae.

'These predictions appear In -.2anr-,h1c,t entitled Administrators for.Aperica's Junior C..21.1 Feeds 196c Raymond. E. Schultz.can be obtained for co; sror ti* American Associati:)n, of JuniorColleges) 177 Massachusett,s Avenue, N. W., Washingtor, D. C.

`Abst of the data for th.5A paper is from the dissertation of Day-1.w Y. Robert.L1entitled 'Ohlef Admini3trat:Jr3 of Public Junior Col3eges: A Prediction of theNumber Needed and Sources of Supply 1963-1973." (Unpnblished Ph.D. dissertatlah,Florida State University, 1964.)

3The terms "chief administrator" and "president" are used interchangeablyaea refer to the individual who has major responsibility for the administrationof a campus operation. Therefore, in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles whichhave several junior collage campuses, the head of each one included in the1c663 Junior College Directory: was included.

-

3. Directors of certain extewion centers. Information obtained from

directors If eleven extension centers indicated that they did not function in

tin capacity of chief adizinistrator, and hence they were eliminated.

4. Presidents of Negro institutions. This group was eliminated for two

related reasons. First, only 19 such institutions existed in 1963, and that

number has since been reduced. With the recent progress of racial Integration,

it seems likely that virtually all public Negro jlulior colleges will either

become fully biracial or be amalgamated uith other institutions. Second, 12 of

19 institutions were located in one stateFloridaand 9 of them had very

small enralments.1 If the presidents of those institutions had been included,

it would have necessitated a separate analysis to avid a distorted picture of

Florida t.s compared to Ithe? states .

5. Presidents of insUtutions inel2throcesa2S transition to senior

colleges? Four presidents :ell in this category.

In summary, the chief administrators of 61 institutions listed in the

2,20 Junior Collage Directory were omitted from consideration. This left

363 administrators as the potential population.

. Two types of sources provided the basic data on which the analyses

reported herein were made. One was an informatior form designed for this

study, and the other consisted of nationally recognized biographical

publications.2 Information was utilized for 333 junior college presidents or

92 per cent of the total eligible group. Insofar as the literature indicates,

this represents b7r F comiderable margin the largest number of public junior

college presidents ever studied in 17ach detail..111=lA primary motive in creating them seems to have been a Cnire to forestall

integration. Since that did not prove successful, several have been discontinued,and the save fate can be expected for the others.

4These publications were Presidents and Deans of American Collages andUniversities 1962-63, no's Who in America, Who in American Education,Who's Who in the EastliiirnolsIffio in tne

r

Review of Related Studies

Only one previous study is relwl%ed !n the literature which treats the

background of public junior college presidents as a distinct group. That study

by Shannon was concerned primarily with the chief administrator's self-perception

of his role. He did, homver, report certain baakground information on the 240

presidents included in his study'

Other related studies have been reported in which presidents of public

junior colleges were included with presidents of other types of two-year colleges.

Levis included 128 junior college presidents and a mach larger group of senior

college and university pre31dents in a study of their backgrounds .2 Be made no

distinction between private and public juror college precedents in his analyses.

A rather comprehensive profile of junior college presidents was dram by Rawk,3

His sample consisted of 162 presidents with approximately two-thirds of them in

public junior colleges. Lae Lowit:,, Le L;rouped together presiclmts of public

and private institutions.

There have been a number of investigations into the backgrounds of senior

college and university presidents. None of these were in recent years, with the

study by Davis, previously mentioned, in 1952-53 being the most recent. One of

the earliest and most comprehensive studies of this type was one by Tbwing in 1926,4

01101..11111 IMMNIIIIMINIMIMMINIIII11101101011.,

1WilliamG. Shannon, "Tbe Community College ?resident: A Study of theRole of President of the Nblic Community Junior College." (Unpublished Ed.D.dissertation, Columbia University, 1962.)

2William P. Levis, "Backgrounds of College Presi&nts in the United States1952-53." (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, George Peabody College, 1953.)

3Ray Hawk, "A Profile of Junior College Presidents:," Juni2E19.1112e121TR1.30: 340-46, February, 1960.

41

Charles P. %%wing, The Collec;e President. (Neer York: Macrillcn Company, 1926),

5

Educatianal. Back,'D wads

libarnEdickesz. All but 10 (3.4) of the 333 presidents held an

earned graduate degree. One hundred seventy-six (52.8%) had a master's as their

highest degree, vith 147 (44.101 possessing the doctorate. Of this latter group,

nearly twice as many had an Ele.D. as had the Ph.D.--95 as compared to 52.

To determine if the proportion of junior college presidents holding a

doctoral degree is increasing, a comparison was made of those appointed during

different time periods. (See Table 1) Assuming that the proportion of those

cho had doctorates is the same for surviving and non-surviving chief administrators,

then a greatly increased eyobasis is bein3 given the doctorate in the selection

of junior college presieents. This t-J.-end =ay be even more prNiounced than these

comparisons show by virtu e at' the fact that those appointed longest ago have had

more time to complete a doc.;;Jml program aster assumiag their positions than

those appointed more recently.

When analyzed by state, wide variation was found in the proportion of

presidents who possessed the doctorate. The 16 states used for this purpose

are arranged in rank order in Table 2. No obvious explanation could be found

for the rank order. For ezample, in both Florida (which ranked highest) and

Nassachusetts ('which ranked lowest), most public junior colleges were established

after 1956.2 Therefore, recency of appointment did not alone explain a state's

rank.

At first inspection, it appeared that neither was tame of control related.

In Florida, public junior colleges nr,.! prated by the local seo.)31 district,

whereas in Nhssaclmsetts and in Oklah:Ana (1Which ranked second) they are directly

under state control. Houever, when all 333 institutions represented in the study

1lDoi+M..I-IMw=..AlIIIrpaoa...III.IrWffIIWMI..I..V110INIO

Irhis compares almost exactly with the 43% reported by Shannon,

2The reader is reminded that the public Negro junior colleges in Florida

are excluded.

6

TABLE I

PER CENT OF PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGEPRESIDENTS WITH DOCTORATE DEGREES INRELATION TO THE PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT

Year President Number Appointed Number Per CentAppointed to Position Who Are Still with With

(inclusive) In Offile Doctorate Doctorate111WIONANKIN.--win

1900-1940 12 1

1941-1951 56 16

1952-1958 123 52

1959-1963 142 78

Total 333 147

8.3

28.5

42.3

54.9

TABLE 2

HIGHEST EARNED DEGREE OP PUBLIC JUNIORCOLLEGE PRESTD2NTS IN STATES WITHEIGHT OR MORN PRESIDENTS REPORTING

Ngs274

State Baccalaureate Masters Doctorate Doctorates

Florida 17 100.0

Oklahoma 3 5 62.5

California ii 23 37 60.6

Washington 4 6 60.0

New York 2 7 13 59.1

Maryland 5 7 58.3

Georgia 4 4 50.0

Texas 16 13 44.8

Michigan 8 6 42.8

Illinois 16 7 30.4

Kansas 10 3 23.1

Pennsylvania 2 8 3 23.1

Mississippi 11 2 16.7

Iowa 12 2 14.3

Minnesota 7 1 12.5

Massachusetts 1 7 1 11.1

Total 6 141 127

were classified by type of control, a distinct pattern was observed. It will be

noted fran 'Table 3 that the proportion of presidents holding tbe doctorate was

viitually the seen in institutions with local independent boards as for institutions

sharing their board with the local public schools but having separate facilities.

FUrthermore, institutions with these tuo types of control had a much higher

percentage with the doctorate (51.7% and 49.0 respectively) than did institutions

with regional or state boards. A possible conclusion to be drown from this

analysis is that local control end separate facilities are the conditions most

conducive to the selection of doctorate holders as presidents of public junior

colleges.

...rAlsgmslazaspla. An analysis was made to determine the area of

specialization for the highest degree. Table 4 shows that the area of

specialization for the overwhelming najority--72.1%-.mas professional education.

The specialization "higher education" vas separated from professional education

to ascertain tLe extent to whioh .:1.G ht be represented. Table 4 shows that

few rgesidents now have higher education as a special field of study. An

appreciable gain in the number of juaior college presidents with this

specialization can be expected during the years ahead as a result of the recent

increase of enrollments and cradua:z programs in "higher education."

To obtain a more detailed account of their educational backgrounds,' an

analysie was made of the area of study for pa degree these presidents

possessed. The results of this comparison, presqnted in Table 5, shad that

public junior college presidents possessed more breadth of background than

might be concluded :An the basis of the data contained in Table 4. Most of them

had an academic major at the undergraduate level, and collects' -4 they held 129

graduate degrees in academic diqciplines. Of the academic areas, the social

sciences were represented by far the m:Lst frequently with the sciences next.

9

TABLE 3

PER ORIT OF 1,UBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE PRESIDENTSWITH DOCTORAT DEGitAES BY TYPE OF

ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL

==e=d5WICS=Cdt===fr.,

Type of Number Number Per CantOrganization Presidents Under with withand Control Each Type Control Doctorates. Doctorates

MMUMMONt+w.MIMININIMiPOw.0.mii..,Local Shared Board(Shared facilities)*

Local Shared Board(Separate facilities)**

Local Independent Board

Regional or State Board

36

128

116

53

8

63

60

16

Total 333 147

IMERWTINFITTIRal-iialn'Tafiocils

22.2

49.2

51.7

30.2

**A separate campus from that of the local public schools

TABLE 4

AREA OF SPECIALIZATION FOR HIGHEST DEGREEOF PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE PRESIDENTS

Area No. Per Cent

Education (without designation)

Higher Education

Humanities and Social Science

Science

Business

Toted.

212

28

59

30

k

63.7

8.4

17.7

9.0

1.2

333 100.0

10

TABLE 5

MAJOR AREAS OF STUDY TAKENBY PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE PRE33:MM

(11 most frequently reported)

Major Areaof Study

Total Number Graduate Degrees Bachelor'sAll Degrees Only* Degree**

ftwimirmarn...roorum....1. Education (all areas)

2. History

3. English

4. Math

5. Chemistry

6. Psychology

7. Biology

8. Economics

9. Engineering

10. Political Science

11. Science (unspecified)

336 .296 40

76 36 40

58 18 40

40 14 26

35 15 20

27 18 9

20 7 13

19 4 15

18 5 13

16 v 10 6

16 2 14

This column exceeds 333 because many presidents possessed momthan one graduate degree.

**This column does not total 333 since a considerable numoer hadundergraduate aajorc in miscellaneous areas and others heldprofessional degrees only. Also, some did not provide this .

information.

e,1

11

aWamPreviJus BEM:least

W...2122pition. The group was analyzed in terms of the last previous

position held. The results are given in Table &and represent considerable

divergence. Nearly SO per cent cane directly from some administrative position

in education. An might be expected, the largest group (390 cane from other

junior college adf istrative positions. The fact that less than 10 per cent

came from other junior college presidencies shows that there was relatively little

movement from one junior college presidency to another. In fact, nearly as many

(8.81) came directly from administrative positions in senior colleges.

The second largest group (22.20 had been in administrative positions in

the elementary and secondary schools. When those who cane from state departments

of education are included with that group, we find that over one-fourth of

them (26.1%) had been administrators in positions below the junior college level.

Viewed another way, the data of Table 6 show that the overwhelmin3 majority

of these junior college presidents cane directly from other administrative

positions. Only 12.3 per cent came from teaching, and most of these were from

college and university faculties, though this is not revealed in the table.

Virtually none assumed their positions directly froingraduate school and very

few came from outside education.

Type of institution. An analysis was node to ascertain if the picture has

been changing in terms of the type of institutions from which junior college

presidents are recruited. This was done by grouping these president3 on the

basis of the period of their appointments. The results of this analysis are shown

in Table. 7.

By virtue of the small number of presidents who were appointed before 1941,

caution needs to be exercised in extrapolating from the information relative to

that group. Nevertheless, some distinct patterns can be observed. For caamples

I

TAMP, 6

LAST PREVIOUS POSITION HELD BYINCUMBENT PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE PRESIDENTS

N333

Type of Previous Position

-1101111111111111111111MIS

Pe~ Cent

Administrator in a senior college or university 29 8.8

Chief administrator of another junior college 32 9.6

Administrator (other than president)Am a junior college 130 39.0

School administrator (elementary and/Orsecondary) 74 22.2

Employed by a state department of education 15 4,5

Teacher (any level) 41 12.3

Graduate student 3 .9

Position outside of education ......../..,.....,.....2A.

'Mal 333 100.0

TABLE 7

TYPE OF' INSTITUTION FROM WHICH INCUMBENTPUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE PRESIDENTS WERE RECRUlTa

IN RELATION TO PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENTN333

Type of Institution

11111111111' WMIIMINII=MINIMINIMINES-11=111111111=11

Period of EMployment

Senior College or University 8.3 (1)

Same Institution

Another Junior College

Elementary or secondaryschool

10.7 (6) 13.1 (16) 21.0 (30)

25.0 (3) 30.4 (17) 25.4 (31) 21.6 (31)

33.3 (4) 14.3 (8) 27.0 (33) 28,7 (41)

33.3 (4) 30.4 (17) 28.7 (35) 22.4 (32)

State Department of Education 0 5.3 (3) 4.1 (5) 2.8 (4)

Other (including graduateschool) 0 .8.2.41...1211?) 3.5 (5)

Total 99.9 (12) 100.0 (56) 99.9 (122) 100.0 (143)

there is a definite trend. toward recruiting more junior college presidents from

positions in senior colleges and universities. Conversely, there is a trend

away from recruiting from elementary and secondary schools. Even so, the

proportion being recruited from below the college level is still considerable.

The junior collage itself has been the primary source from which these lresidents

were recruited. Of the total group aver the entire period, exactly bilf were

emp3.oyed in a junior college immediately. prior to becoming presidents. There

appears to be a slight trend toward more coming from another junior college

rather than being promoted from within the institution. Incidentally, while

not shown in Table 7, only three of these 333 presidents came directly from

a position in a private junior college.

The data of Table 7 raise the question as to whether a larger proportion

of junior collage presidents should not be recruited from within the junior

college ranks. Stated another way, can the public junior college develop an

articulate philosophy with such a divergence of backgrounds among its

administrators? Or, does this divergence of backgrounds bring to the junior

college movement a variety of viewpoints that constitutes a strength?

To ascertain if variations existed among states in terms of where these

junior college presidents were recruited, several other analyses were made.

Three of them are presented and discussed here; newly, (1) a state by state'

comparison, (2) a comparison by type of control, and (3) a comparison by

institutional inrollment.

The analysis by state failed to reveal any clear-cut patterns. Also, due

to the small numbers involved in some states, percentage comparisons tended

to create distortions. As might be expected, those states with a considerable

number of older junior colleges have recruited a high proportion of their

3.4

presidents from the junior college ranks. Although Table 8 does not provide

this breakdown, most of them were recruited from institutions within the state

where employed.

It will be observed from Table 8 that pronounced differences existed among

states in the proportion of pre:Adent3 recruited frau senior colleges and

universities. California drew& smeller proportion of its presidents from this

source than or night expect. Three of the states which ranked highest on this

basis, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Florida, had recently established most of

their junior colleges. This svggesttthat when e. state is rapidly expanding its

public junior college system, it utilizes a variety of sources for obtaining

presidents to head up these institutions. A surprising situation is present in

the case of Messachusetts, however; nanely, that drawing heavily upon this source

doss not necessarily result in a high proportion of presidents who possess the

doctorate. It will be recalled from the data of Table 2 that Massachusetts had

the lowest proportion of doctorate holders of any state analyzed. Conversely, in

Florida, which had also recruited from senior ',1.1ages and universities to a

considerable degree, all presidents had doctoral degrees.

Table 9 presents the analysis based an type of institutional control. Here

one can Observe distinct variations. Junior colleges having local, boards which

shared their fecilities with local public schools were a group apart in terms

of where their presidenZs were recruited. They attracted a considerabry.,

smaller proportion of the presidents from senior colleges and universities

and a far Urger proportion from elenantary and secondary schools than did

institutions under other types ox' control -- including thAe with local shared

boards but with separate facilities. The other three categories recruited

approximately the sane proportion of their presidents from senior colleges

and universities.

A major surprise resulting from this analysis was the fact that institutions

15,

TABLE 8

TYPE OF INSTITUTIO' FROM WHICH INCUMBENTPUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE PRbSIDIZITS WERE RECRUITED

IN SELECTIZ STATES

MOMMIMMEMIPMmena=.....011INSMININROVE11WIAMOMWMMwS,MIIM.41 AnsWwINIMilaPer Cent Recruited From*

State W17=11170Bniii-rifilor Idlir or ""Ti her`Nx274 or university College See.Sohool

California 61 8.2 (5) 73.8 (45) 18.0 (il)

Texas 29 17.2 (5) 65.6 (19) 17.2 (5)

Illinois 23 8.7 (2) 52.2 (12) 39.1 (9)

New York 22 13.6 (3) 54.5 (12) 13.6 (3)

Florida 17 29.4 (5) 41.2 (7) 17.6 (3)

Iowa 14 7.1 (1) .. (0) 85.7 (12)

Michigan 14 01P WO (0) 42.9 (6) 50.0 (7)

Mississippi 13 MO ON (o) 69.2 (9) 15.4 (2)

Kansas 13 .. (0) 61.5 (8) 30.8 (4)

Pennsylvania 13 15.4 (2) 61.5 (8) 15.4 (2)

Maryland 12 41.7 (5) 25.0 (3) 25.0 (3)

Washington 10 20.0 (2) 60.0 (6) 10.0 (1)

Massachusetts 9 44.4 (4) 22.2 (2) .. (0)

GeorgiL 8 50.0 (4) 25.0 (2) SO al (0)

Minnesota 8 12.5 (1) 75.0 (6) 12.5 (1)

Oklahoma 8 25.0 (2) 25.0 (2) 37.5 (3)

MOON (0)

(0)

MOON (0)

18.2 (4)

11.8 (2)

7.1 (1)

7.1 (1)

15.4 (2)

7.7 (1)

7.7 (1)

8.3 (1)

10.0 (1)

33.3 (3)

25.0 (2)

(0)

12.5 (1)

*Nu: 'lee of the small numbers involved, these classifications have beencuabined from thoise used in T.ble 7.

TABLE 9

TYPE OF INSTITUTION PROM WHICH INCUMBENT PUBLIC

JUNIOR COLLEGE

PRESIDENTS WERE RECRUITED COMPARED BY TYPEOF CONTROL

OF PRESENT INSTITUTION

N333

Type of Institution

4e of Control of Present Institution

Shared Board*

(shared facilities)

(N=36)

Shared Board

Independent

(separate facilities)

Board

(N*128)

(N=116)

eg ona

or

State Board

(Na53)

Senior college or university

Same institution

Another junior college

Elementary or secondary school

State department of education

Other (including graduate study)

8.3 (3)

16.7 (6)

13.9 (5)

50.0 (18)

2.8 (1)

8.3 (3)

15.6 (20)

20.3 (26)

29.7 (38)

30.5 (39)

2.3 (3)

1.6 (2)

17.2

(20)

18.9

(10)

33.6

(39)

21.0

(11)

29.3

(34)

16.9

(9)

13.8

(16)

28.3

(15)

3.5 (4)

2.6 (3)

7.5 (k)

7.5 00

*See explanatory note for Table 3.

17

with local independent boards recruited an appreciably smaller proportion at their

presidents from the elementary and secondary schlols tbau did any of the other

categories. One might expect that infoltutions under regional or state boards

would have had this distinction. However, they recruited nearly as hi4th a

proportion of their presidents from elementary and secondary schools as did

institutions with local stored boards and, separate facilities.

Junior collages with local inaependent bouts had "home grovn" presidents,

to use the vernacular. It will be observed from Table 9 that 62.9 per cent

of the presidents of these institutions came directly from the junior college

ranks. (This figure is obtained by cmobining the two "junior collagen

categories.) Tie corresponding proportion was 50 per cent for institutions with

shared boards and local tacilities, 37.9 per cent for those with regional or

state boards, and but 30.6 per cent for those with local shared bouts and

shared facilities.

Table 10 shows that elementary and secondary schools teens the major source

of presidents for junior colleges with small enrollments. Over 40 per cent

of the presidents of institutions with under 400 enro.liment oar disectly from

such positions. By contrast, only 13.6 per cant of the presidents of junior

collages with enrollments 2000 and over came from this source.

One might expect the reverse of what was found in the proportion of chief

administrators who V078 recruited from senior collages and universities. The

fact that the proportion is lowest in the 2000 and over enrollment °Mr/gory is

'certainly not what might be anticipated. This very, in part at least, be a

result of selection practices in California where a preponderance of the nation's

very large junior colleges are located. and where, as is shown in Table 8, most

presidents were selected from oti:Ar jlinior college positions.

That supposition is supported by the fact that 72.8 per cent of the

presidents in institutions with enrollments of 2000 and over oame from this

source. 'es wreentsge dropped for each subeequent samiler enrollment. category

TABLE 10

TYPE OF UST1TUTION MOM WHICH INCUMBENTPUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE PRESIDENTS WERE RECRUITED

BY ENROLLMENT OP PRESENT INSTITUTION103J3

Type of InstitutionDEM17400' 400- 9 abb.:1915 20 and over

(N.'85)

&raiment of Present InstitutionCR. 9 (Nan) (N88)

Senior College orUniversity 18.8

Same Institution 17.6

Another junior college 16.5

Elementary or secondaryschool 41.2

State department ofeducation

(26) 20.2 (18)

(15) 21.4 (19)

(14) 19:1 (17)

(35) 25.8 (23)

3.5 (3)

Other (includinggraduate school) 2.4 (2)

12.7 (9) 11.4 (10)

26.8 (19) 33.0 (29)

28.2 (20) 39.8 (35)

25.4 (18) 13.6 (12)

5.6 (5) 2.8 (2) 2.3 (2)

7.9 (7) 4.2 (3) -- (0)

P

and was only 34.1 per cent for institutions with enrollments of under 400 students.

There may also be reflected here,the fact that junior colleges with larger

staffs have more opportunity than ..Lot-ie vith areal staffs to attract into second

echelon roles young administrators with the potential to become presidents. Another

contributing factor maybe presidents who were recruited from senior college and

university staffs to head up new junior colleges which initially have small

enrollments.

Uas

This group of presidents ranged in age from 31 to 74 years with a median

age of 41. fallAng, at the first quartile of the age distribution were 42

years olsi while those at the third quartile were 57. The mean age for the group

was 50.3 years, tklich is 1.3 years older than the 49 years reported by Lewis for

the 128 public and private junior college presidents included in his study,1

No other data were found an the mean age of junior college presidents.

However, several studies have reported the age of such presideras at the time of

appointment. Levis reported that the mean age of his sample at the time of

appointment to the presidency was 41 years. Hawk, in 1960, reported that the

mean ege at the time of appointment for his sample of 162 junior college presidents

(t bout two-thirds of whom were in public institutions) was 42.5 years.2 By

comparison, the mean age at the time of appointment for this snail:17W found to

be 43.1 years. Inaszatch as the samples used by Lewis and Hawk also included

private junior college presidents, a Parther analysis was made of the data to

ascertain if there vas a trend toward selecting older public junior collegepresidents. The median as well a.: the first and third quartile distribution was

ILlswiss ,op. ult., p. 39.

L.._..2livkl op. cit., p. 342.

20

computed for presidents who were appointed during three successive time periods

as follows:

PERIOD AOE 07 AT maxsuria, POZENAPPO t Quartile *dim Third Suartile

1948-52 38. 42

1953-57 38 43

1958-62 40 45

47

50

50

The above evidence reveals that there has bin a slight trend tauard

selecting older individuals as presidents of public junior colleges. One

night have expected exactly the opposite trend in light of the large author

of new institutions which have bash established in recent years.

As a further analysis, age distributions were compared by state. The

results are presented in Table 11. It shows that there was considerable

variability among these i6 states in the mean ages of public junior college

presidents. There is no apparent explanation for these differenoes. For

example, =maven these presidents in Florida and Nkssachumetts had been

appointed but a short time, and yet their an ages varied considerably.

Anther, an examination of Table 2 in relation to Table 11 shows that there was

no correlation between age and the proportion mf doctorate holders. Finally,

there was no indication that states with my long-established institutions

had a preponlerance of older presidents. In fact, of California's 61

presidents, only 4 were over 60 years of age.

Reasons Positions Became Available

Turnover is not, of course, directly related to the backgrounds of the

public junior college presidents included in this study. However, the reasons

that the positions which they held temp available and the frequency with which

such vacancies developed were factors directly relevant to the purpose of this

report. For these reasons, an analysis was made to determine the factors that

23.

TABLE 11

AGE DISTRIBUTIONS AND MAN AGES OF PUBLIC JUNIORCOLLEGE PRESIDENTS IN 16 STATES

Na274

State 30-40 41-50 51-60 61 & Over Mean Age

Florida 3 14 0 0 44.8Washington 1 7 2 0 46.7Michigan 2 6 5 1 47.7Iowa 2 5 5 2 48.4Illinois 4 9 8 2 48.6Maryland 2 6 3 1 49.2Minnesota 1 3 4 0 49.5Pennsylvania 3 3 6 1 49.7

.

California 3 29 25 4 51.0Massachusetts 2 3 3 1 52.0Kansas 2 4 4 3 57.1Texas 3 8 12 6 53.1Mississippi 1 4 4 4 53.2New York 1 4 11. 6 54.5Oklahoma 0 3 2 3 54.7Georgia 1 2 2 3 54.9

Total 31 110 96 37

22

accounted for vacancies occurring in this position. (See Table 12)

No 'vends are observed in Table 12 as to the reasons that vacancies occurred.

There seemed to be more similarity between the first (1947 and before) period

and the last (1958-63) period than between either of these and the two (1947-52

and 1953-57) intervening time periods. Considering the entire group, it willbe noted that approximately one-third were the first presidents of their insti-

tution, another one-third filled vacancies left by presidents who resigned to

accept abhor positions, and the remaining one-third filled vacancies occurring

for other reasons; i.e., retirements, deaths, and resignations before obtaining

another position. The fact that 13..7 per cent filled positions in which the

predecessor was released or resigned before accepting another position ray bea rough index as the prowestion of public junior collage presidents-who:are

imsuccessfa or extremely dissatisfied in tat role.

Only one previous effort appears to have been made to ascertain turnover

or public junior college presidents. Butters= stated that the leadership of286 such institutions in 24 states changed hands 288 times during the period

194-57.1 11 Wk accepted this statement as evidence that the cycle of leadership

in public junior colleges is completed each decade.2 Since Menders= did not

describe his procedure, it is not possible to ascertain if his figures couldbe used as a basis of comparison for those derived in this investigation. When

the turnover rate of public Junior college presidents was computed for the

period 1953-34 through 1962-63, a mean annual gross turnover rate of 5.2 per

cent was obtained. (See Table 13) When those administrators vho came from

other presidencies were eliminated, the mean annual net replaossant need vas

lAlgo D. liendereans "Ilov Mall We Get Top readership ter Caemunitor Colleges?"Speech delivered in New York at a conference of the American Association of JuniorColleges, February, 1958.

%ma, on. cl., p. 31$6.

23

TABLE 12 '

REASONS POSITIONS HELD BY JUNIOR COLLEGEPRESIDENTS BECAME AVAILABLE

Reason Position Per Cent bBecame Available 777,77E1757-67

PeriodJ a

Predecessor resigned 37.5 (15) 28.6(10) 23.5(20) 32.9(57) 30.6(102)to accept anotherposition

Predecessor released or 17.5 (7) 17.1 (6) 9.4 (8) 10.4(18) 11.7(39)resigned before acceptinganother position

Predecessor retired 2.5 (1) 25.7 (9) 37.6(32) 15.1(26) 20.4(68)or deceased

Predecessor's fate 7.5 (3) 5.7 (2) 7.1 (6) 3.0 (5) 4.8(16)unknown or not given

eirsv person'to hold 35.0 (14) 22.9 (8) 22.3(19) 38.7(67) 32.4(108)position

Total Na (40) (35) (85) (173) 10u.0(333)

found to be 4.7 per cent for the ten-year period. Both of these rates are, of

course, much lover than the 10 per cent figure advanced by Nenierson. The fact

that the turnover rata for t'io 3f the last to years vere considerably above

the MOMS may be an indication ti ere is a recent trend toward more turnover

in public junior college presidencies.

Table 13 illustrates the computations made to obtain the turnover rates

previously mentioned. Mese computations were obtained by using the number of

public junior colleges in existence for the years 1953-54 through 1962-63 which

net the criteria for this study. That number was further reduced by 8 per cent

to obtain a number cceparable to the 92 per cent of all reutilizing public junior

colleges represented in this investigation. (Co]. 2) The number of newly

a p p o i n t e d p r e s i d e n t s for-each y e e r un d e r co r--83.deration was t h e n determined. CoI

From this figure was subtracted the number Ifho were heeding newly established

institutions. (Col. 4) The number in Column 4 *du than divided by the number

in Col= 2 to give the annual 2,osr turnover rate. (Col. 5) FixeLty, the

number in Collmn 6 vas divided by the number in Column 2 to give the net

replacement need. (Col- 7)

Summary

Following is a brief summarization and commentary upon this picture of the

educational and experience backgrounds of public junior college pesidents

provided by this study.

less than balf (44.1 %) of them possessed an earned doctoral degree.

Nearly two-thirds of those with such a degree possessed the Ed.D. There was

wide variation in the proportion of doctorate holders among states ranging from

100 to less than 12 per cent for the 16 states analyzed on this basis. The

proportion was lowest for institutions vith local school boards and shared

facilities, being but 22.2 per cent and not much higher, 30.2 per cent, for

TA

BL

E 1

.4

TU

RN

OV

ER

OF

PUB

LIC

PRE

S/D

EN

TS

FOR

A

Yea

rtr

ust t

utio

ns.

ofio

l.2

1953

-54

.7 78

1954

-55

1276

1955

-56

*19

56-5

731

1

1957

-58

$22

1958

-59

X30

1959

-60

327

1960

-61

313

1961

-62

326

1962-63

342

;Isola

N. 6

3-ri

ewly

Appt,

Pres

iden

ts

OR

CO

LL

EG

E-Y

EA

R P

ER

IOD

Col

.4N

.-T

iane

wly

1es

t.Pos

ition

al

20 10 14 17 21 32 21 39 42 46

Mar

i gro

ss

Co1

.5G

ross

_T

urn-

over

rat

e(P

er C

ent)

Co1

.6N

o. n

ot li

revi

-ou

sly,

pub

licJ.

C.P

iesi

dent

sA

MIlm

nIN

IMU

NN

arom

alle

mel

me

16 8 12 13 14 17 13 23 15 32 turn

over

rat

e

5.8

2.9

4.o

4.1

4.3

5.1

3.9

7.3

4.6

Col

.7N

et L

epL

acem

ent

Nee

d(P

er C

ent)

.22....

5.2

Mea

n

14 7 12 12 14 16 12 19 14 29 repl

acem

ent

5.0

2.5

4.0

3.8

4.3

4.8

3.7

6.1.

4.3

need

4.7

26

institutions under regional or state boards. There was virtually no difference

between institutions with local independent boards and those with local shared

_ boards but separate facilities. Approximately 50 per cent of the presidents

possessed the doctorate in both instances.

Nearly-three-fourths (72.1 A of the entire group specialized in professional

education for their highest degree. Only 8.4 per cent identified any phase

of "higher education" as their area of study within professional education.

However, a majority of them nn.jored in an academic discipline at the under-

graduate level with social science being most frequently represented, followed

by some phase of science.

Eighty per cent of these presidents cane to their assignments directly

from some other administrative position. Nearly half-aftlect7tel (48.-64)

had held another junior college administrative position. Another 22.2 per cent

cane frame position in elementary and/or secondary school administration, and

6.8 per cent came from a senior college or university administrative position.

Of the 12.3 per cent uho came frcsin teaching, most were on college or university

faculties.

Considerable variation existed among states the proportion of public

junior college presidents recruited from senior colleges and universities.

It was highest in states with recently established or expanded junior college

systems. Surprisingly, however, states that drew heavily from this source

did not necessarily have a high ratio of doctorate holders. The fact that

institutions with enrollments under 800 had a higher proportion of presidents

who were recruited from senior colleges and universities than did institutions

with enrollments over 2,000 no doubt reflected the fact that my of these had

been established only recently. That supposition is supported by the fact that

Wan an analysis was made in terms of when a president was appointed, a distinct

27

trend was fount. toward seleci;ln lelatively more presidents from the senior college

and university ranks.

Conversely, the trend was elay froze selecting presidents who had positions

in elementary and secondary schools. The proportion was still considerable,

howevers-amounting to 22.4 per cent of those appointed during the period 1959.63.

Wide variation wasted ationg states in this respect, ranging from 85.7 per

cent for Iowa and 50 per cent for Michigan to none for Georgia and Massachusetts.

The type of "board covitral cee..,, . to 1.e o.11 it factor here. Half of allpresidents in institutionz with ';;:c 1. :ztrod boards and shared Facilities cane

from positions in elemen.:Tryand secondary schools. Convorsely, only 13.6

per cent of those in instfltiltions governed by independent local boards cane

from such positions.

It was found that the larger junior colleges _became, the-more-Likely- boards-

were to select presidents directly from the junior cillege ranks. Over twice aslarge a proportion of the presidents of institutions with =rains:its of 2000

and over were selected from this source as compared with institutions under400 in enrollment- -72.8 per cent and 34.1 per cent.

The median age for the group was 47 years with a range from 31 to 74. Wide

varied ion was found. among states, Florida having the youngest group with an

average age of 44.8 years and Geor!..,rie, the oldest with 54.9. Relative newness

of institutions was thought to hear a possible relationship to age, but this wasnot found to be the case. Florida and Massachusetts both with way recentlyeste.blisbed institutions ranked 1 and 10 respectively, wbereas Iola and

Mississippi, neither with a significant number of recently established institutions,ranked 4 and 13 respectively among the 16 states analyzed.

An analysis of the reasons that the positions held by these presidentsbecame available showed that roughly me-third of their predeoessors resignedto accept another position, one -third were in newly established positions, and

28

one-fifth were in positions which became available due to retirements or deaths.Another 11.7 per cent were .1u positions where the predecessor had been releasedof resigned before accepting another rosition. The total .or gross annualturnover rate for this position was found to be 5.2 per cent. SJhen those who

moved from one public junlor collet e ):;re3iclency to anot:ler were excluded' thenet maul rep3iticenant needs I.e.; t,1:= ter of new presidents tint- =et berecruited each year to 1'111 vacancies created by turnover, was es' :sablisbed as4.7 per cent of the total xir.r.ber.